Joe Schoemann wrote:
> I recently heard that Dovid Hamelech asked one of his generals, why he
> hadn't wiped out the whole of Amolek, he had not killed the women . The
> general replied that the Torah say zecher Amolok and not the women. So this
> is an old error.
Yo'av's rebbe taught him "z'char" (sheva na, patach), which is definitely
wrong, and that rebbe paid the ultimate penalty for ziyuf hatorah. But
this is irrelevant to the segol/tzere safek.
> Why we perpetuate this error puzzles me.
Which error? Which version are you regarding as an error, and why?
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the earliest source for having the Youngest Child recite
> The Mah Nishtanah?
As opposed to what? The oldest child? Or a randomly chosen child?
(FWIW, minhag L is for all the children to say it, and then the adults
also say it quietly.)
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher

RMB wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:48:41PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: Yes, (advanced/ultimate) science is (somehow) embedded in Torah, but too
: deeply to be uncovered by mortals (cf. chukim) and thus unreasonable to
: expect Chazal to have advanced scientific knowledge based on their prowess
: in limud Torah...
That's a stronger statement than the one I made.
I just said that the quotes "histaqeil beOraisa uvarei alma" et al speak
of what Hashem did, not what people are capable of. Therefore, it leaves
open the possibility that while nature was made to fit the Torah, people
can't necessarily see how.
I did not assert that's what the sources themselves say.
IOW, I just dismissed them as proofs; I didn't give any arguments one
way or the other about Chazal knowing science. I think the discussions
of the sun going behind the raqi'ah are sufficient for that. The fact
that Chazal still spoke that way, even after Ptolmey -- albeit not when
Ptolmeic theory was popular -- makes the point irrefutably.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
CM responds:
Actually, I am with you here, I did not intend my last post to sound as
definite as it did either. I merely meant it as a possibility. I had
previously posted in this thread that I was not staking out a position,
just probing in attempt to clarify. In fact I am not as definite about it
(the other side of the coin) as you either and not sure that it is
"irrefutable." Those who would deflect your latter argument would say that
Chazal where not speaking of the material world but in code about the
spiritual world.
Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100302/67d3a042/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:15:51AM -0000, Chana wrote:
:> I was looking at the SA when I wrote that. Not what the Rambam says,
:> just translating what the SA says he says.
:
: But the thing is, any reading of the SA has to be plausible...
First point of disagreement (POD #1): I don't see this as a "reading of
the SA", which is a phrasing that makes it sound like the SA's words can
be taken different ways.
However, here's the SA YD 268:3:
... except for qabalas hamitzvos, which is me'aqeves if not during
the day and before 3.
And according to the Rif and to the Rambam,
AFILU bedi'avad, shetaval o mal bifnei 2 o balaylah me'qeiv
ve'asur beYisraelis
Where in "afilu" do you see "instead"? There is no aval lehaRif
vehaRambam, the connective is a "ve-". Here is clearly adding to the
previous.
: Similarly, we all agree that the SA
: knew how to read the Rambam. So if he says that the Rambam says something,
: it must be a plausible read in the Rambam...
Somewhere in the Rambam. Not necessarily the two peraqim of the Yad
we're looking at, or even the Yad altogether. It could even be implied
by diyuq halashon and seeing whose words the Rambam echos. IOW, I doubt
our own ability to know what the plausible reads are.
POD #2:
: a) QOM as a legal action - very similar to a shavuah in fact, in which the
: person says in front of a beis din of three - "from here on in, I will keep
: the mitzvot". This is what Tosphos and the Rosh understands when they
: refer to QOM....
Where do you see this in Tosafos or the Rosh? I think this is some later
lomdus. Why does a shavu'ah require BD? I believe the actual lashon in
the rishonim is that QOM is the iqar of geirus, and thus requires BD.
IOW, the only question is which parts of geirus require BD.
I disagree with this whole "legal action" vs personal qabalah
distinction. Rather, QOM is either auxiliary to geirus or part of
geirus, and if the latter, may be of the subset (which may be 100%) of
geirus that requires BD).
POD #3:
: Yes he does say kol hagoyim kulam sheyisgayru viyqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos
: shel Torah .. harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar...". But there is a leap in
: the logic here to say, as you have done above that this means that "QOM is a
: separate part of becoming Jewish". He does not say this. He says that if
: the ger has this he is like your standard born Jew. But that does not
: necessarily mean that if he does not have this, that means he is not a ger
: but a goy.
You just created a new category -- someone who isn't a standard Jew nor
a goy. Unless you're classing him with avadim Kenaanim, that's an
entirely new concept to me and in either case would require major
evidence that people can fall into this "no man's land".
: In fact, if it was an intrinsic part of "becoming" Jewish, then you would
: not need to mention it here. The Rambam does not need to mention all goyim
: sheyisgaru and do tevila - because tevila is an intrinsic part of
: sheyisgaru, without which the goy remains a goy...
You assume that the Rambam identifies shenisgayeir with becoming a Jew.
Turn that 180deg... If the Rambam says you need both, then clearly he
holds that the mitzvah ma'asis of geirus is not enough to be a Jew,
one also needs QOM. A geir tzedeq is someone who was misgayeir AND did
QOM -- without QOM he isn't a Jew, and thus not a geir tzedeq. Even
though he did the geirus rite. That's the Rambam's words, at face value.
POD #4:
: But getting back to the main point. If you understand the Rambam, as the
: Bach does, that he does not require QOM kol ikar - that is, not only does
: the Rambam not require the legal action of Tosphos and the Rosh, but he
: doesn't even require the mindset that goes with b), the resolve in the heart
: at the time of the geirus and as a precondition for geirus, then of course
: the Rambam needs to say this.
The Bach is a daas yachid in how he understands the Rambam, and only
presents his version of the Rambam in order to reject it. I don't see
why you return to the Bach so frequently.
IOW, why not take the same tack with the Bach as you do with the SA.
Since the Bach appears to deny the Rambam's explicit requirement for
QOM, why not assume you're misreading the Bach?
See POD #6, where I argue just that.
POD #5:
: But the point is that the
: Yisrael mumar does not have, depending on the kind of mumar he is, the
: status of a standard Yisrael l'kol davar. His wine may be assur to drink,
: it may be permissible to lend to him at ribus. It may be permissible to
: hate him. And the list goes on and on. In fact, at the extreme, he has the
: status "k'akum".
A mumar who marries a Yisraelis, the qidushin is chal. Not so the person
who is nisgayeir but doesn't accept QOM. They are different things.
: I am not saying this is the only read of this Rambam, your read is possible,
: but it is a very weak thread to hold you read on when everything else points
: the other way and this read is perfectly tenable.
Except it forces you to take neither the Rambam nor the SA at face
value. (As per above; which is why I didn't make this POD #6.)
POD #6:
:> The Bach you refer to (YD 268, "vekhol inyanav") also doesn't deny the
:> Rambam requiring QOM. Rather, he says the Rambam and Semag only require
:> BD for tevilah. The question he addresses is whether QOM requires BD,
:> not whether becoming a Jew requires QOM altogether -- even bedi'eved.
: No, you quoting from too high up in that Bach. He starts by discussing that
: the Rambam and the Semag only require BD for tevila, but later on he
: says"D'katuv haRambam (perek 13 halacha 17) d'kasher af al pi shelo hayta
: l'shem kabalat mitzvoth kol ikar"
But as you appear to agree, in my citation later on he does later down
say the Rambam requires QOM, albeit without a BD.
So here's how I read the Bach's "kol ikar"... The tevilah wasn't lesheim
QOM explicitly, however since it was for a mitzvah, there is some kind of
connection to QOM in the tevilah. IOW, "kol ikar" modified the tevilah,
which is the feminin noun in the "shelo hayta", not QOM. I don't see how
you can read this part of the Bach as referring to anything but the need
for lesheim QOM within the tevilah, not QOM itself.
POD #7:
: OK, so here is your argument that the Rambam has two aspects, one is the
: formal legal one which has nothing to do with QOM, and one is the duty of
: the heart, akin to teshuva. Now there are various problems with this. As
: you indicate "I think there is a leshitaso here -- the Rambam doesn't count
: pure thought and emotion among the mitzvos" - well I think that could be
: said generally. Devarim sheb'lev aino devarim...
And yet kaparah requires a davar shebeleiv as well. I don't see this as
a problem. As I wrote, this is how the Rambam treats chovos halvavos in
general. Far from problematic, it fits his consistent means of avoiding
the problem. The rite of geirus is maasis, then there is a qiyum shebeleiv
that is required as well.
: But the other thing that seems to come out of your test is that there need
: be no defining moment. The mila and the tevila can happen without this QOM
: in the heart, and then an hour, a day, a week, a month or months later maybe
: there can be this QOM...
I'm not sure the first part is true. It would appear, e.g. the Bach,
that QOM is a prerequisite. The whole chiddush of ger qatan is that al
daas BD can stand in, to be affirmed when the qatan becomes a bar
mitzvah.
POD #8:
: There are two points where you and I are reading this differently.
: a) the word choshashin. You understand choshashin to mean that we are in
: doubt about whether there is a real, halachically valid, conversion. I
: understand choshashin similar to the way it and chashad are used throughout
: discussions regarding a Yisrael Mumar, hilchos shechita etc....
Yes, I am saying we're chosheish whether he's Jewish, not whether he's a
mumar. As per my point in POD #5, that saying he can't marry a Yehudis
means there is more than mumarus afoot.
You also lump cheshash and cheshad as synonyms. They aren't, and that's
relevent here. Cheshad is a statement of accusation. Cheshash is
entertainment of doubt. It's relevent that this is a cheshash in
particular.
: b) You are reading the "afilu chozer" as only going on one who has
: "sheyitbaer tzidkuto" whereas I read it as going on each and every ger in
: the sentence, whether he has sheyitbaer tzidkuto or not....
I don't see this chiluq as relevent.
I'm contrasting the afilu chozer to the person who makes it clear he
never had a QOM to return from. The whole concept of "chozer" implies a
need for QOM. Otherwise, you could have a geir who is oveid AZ who never
left AZ, no chazarah involved. Nor tzidqus. And the whole discussion of
Shimshon and Shelomo's wives wouldn't work without assuming some kind of
QOM -- with or without it being a step requiring BD.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:55:49PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: What Rabbeinu Tam and others have done IMHO is simple
: They told everyone how they held
: BUT they deferred to the consensus anyway
: Either out of humility or as a POLICY - probably so as not to play the
: REBEL.
Or mimeticism. IOW, heuristically speaking, R' Tam thought that the
sevara for allowing bitul was stronger, but not strong enough to give
that "pro" enough to outweigh minhag Yisrael.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RRW:
> What is the earliest source for having the Youngest Child recite The
> Mah Nishtanah?
RZS:
> As opposed to what? The oldest child? Or a randomly chosen child?
> (FWIW, minhag L is for all the children to say it, and then the adults
> also say it quietly.)
Good questions
Palginan dibbura:
1 What is the earliest source for having the Youngest Child recite the
Mah Nishtanah?
2 What is the earliest source for having any child recite The Mah
Nishtanah?
Zissen Pesach
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Re zeicher and zecher. My brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan Penkower of Br Ilan
University wrote an extensive article proving that the correct
pronunciation is zeicher. It's way beyond my expertise although Jordan
acknowledged as a leading expert in bible studies, Jewish manuscripts etc.
I asked a member of my shul, who is also an expert in this field and who
often is the ba'al korey on Parshat Zachor, if he had read the article. he
said he had and that Jordan was "absolutely" correct. So I asked him (as
Jordan had asked me to) whether he would read it only that way (zeicher) on
Parshat Zachor. "Of course not," he replied; "what do facts have to do
with minhag Yisrael?" And sure enough, he read it both ways.
Joseph Kaplan

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> FWIW, R' Jack Love argues in favor of "zeikher". Think about
> it: saying "destroy all memory of Amaleiq, don't forget!" is
> a paradox. In fact, today, the greatest thing keeping
> knowledge that there once was a nation/tribe called Amaleiq
> alive is the very chiyuv in question. Therefore, he suggests
> the Gra's haqpadah was to read the pasuq as "destroy all
> reminders/memorials of Amaleiq". Which would be with a
> zeirei, not a segol.
I'm not enough of a boki to discuss whether the vowel influences the
meaning of this word. But I will say that long before the Gra, Rashi (right
there, the last one in the parsha) made the meaning of this word very
clear:
<<< Destroy the z/ch/r of Amalek from man to woman, from infant to
baby, from ox to sheep, so that the name of Amalek will not be mentioned
even about an animal, so as to say, "This animal was Amalek's."
>>>
Never forget!
But get rid of all the souvenirs.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

RMB: "For all of the
re-teitching and excuses, we can't pretend that minhag Yisrael saba was
anything but getting inebriated."
I'm wondering, does anyone know that this is true. That is, is there any historical evidence that in, say, the 13th-17th centuries, Jews got drunk on Purim?
Joseph Kaplan

Tosafos on the issue of "mevatlin ha'avoda" to hear the megillah (3a) thinks
that mevatlin doesn't really mean mevatlin, rather that they don't do it in
the best way (in the case of avodah, it means they push off the time to
perform it). As the issue of mevatlin Talmud Torah for mikra megillah comes
directly from the issue of avoda, presumably we can make the same statement.
It's not really bitul torah, it's just not the best form of Talmud Torah.
All the best,
Ariel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100303/bdd47731/attachment-0001.htm>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Zev Sero
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:43 PM
>
> Yo'av's rebbe taught him "z'char" (sheva na, patach), which
> is definitely
> wrong, and that rebbe paid the ultimate penalty for ziyuf
> hatorah.
Though his is not so clear from the Gemora, as there are no nekudos.
I seem to recall reading from Rav Shternbuch in one of his sforim, that the
rebbe taught him zecher, which could mean "the zochor of", in the same way as
eshen means 'oshon of', in parshas yisro.
The rebbes mistake was therefore zecher instead of zeicher.
Akiva

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> 2 What is the earliest source for having any child recite The Mah
> Nishtanah?
Is this a trick question? Surely the source is the mishneh, Pesachim 10:4
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:15:25AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: Though his is not so clear from the Gemora, as there are no nekudos.
: I seem to recall reading from Rav Shternbuch in one of his sforim, that the
: rebbe taught him zecher, which could mean "the zochor of", in the same way as
: eshen means 'oshon of', in parshas yisro.
I.e. a semichut. Like Benei Yisrael for haBanim shel Yisrael.
And therefore could very well be an argument for the six-dot variant
even if it would therefore by the only such in Tanakh --
"zekher Amaleiq" as "the zeikher of Amaleiq".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RZS:
> Is this a trick question? Surely the source is the mishneh, Pesachim 10:4
Yes it is a bit tricky because we have been conditioned to see it
differently than perhaps intended or as the Rishonim saw it!
Read the mishnah again very slowly
See where Mishnah says son says "Mah Nishtana" -- or maybe someone ELSE
says it
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:14:41PM -0500, I wrote:
: Maaseh Rav says the the Gra was maqpid to say "zeikher", and in his
: hasqamah, R' Chaim Volozhiner disagrees and says the Gra was maqpid to
: say "zekher".
RAFolger asked me off list if I hadn't gotten it confused. I checked,
he's correct, so I should share the correction with the olam.
BH there is a copy of Maaseh Rav at
http://download.hebrewbooks.org/downloadhandler.ashx?req=31538
(thus proving that Lub has forgiven the Gra?). And it's OCR-ed
too, so I was able to search the PDF!
So the statement in MR for parashas Zakhor is #134, "besegol tachas
hazayin".
Also, in #28, he says the word in Ashrei is also "zekher".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

RZS:
> Rashi and Rashbam on the mishneh (Psachim 116a) both say that the son
asks "mah nishtana".
Rashi says:
"Mah nistanah ACHSHAV SHEMOZGIM KOSSHEINI"
Rashbam is similar
BUT NOT the Mah Nishtaneh WE HAVE
So Zev might be technically correct that those TWO WORDS are mentioned
by rashi and rashbam
BUT neither are referring to the Mah Nishtaneh we say in the Haggadah
NOR the Mah Nishtaneh of the mishnah or Talmud [both Talmudim]!
RZS:
> But that's a very strange interpretation, and hinges on just one word:
> "hakorei".
Adderabba the simple read of the mishneh
[Kan or kein] the son asks and if the son lacks da'as THEN the father
teaches him "mah mishtaneh halayla hazah ..."
At no point is there any evidence in Rambam Rashi Rashbam [or other
rishonim AFAIK] that the formula was said by the child
Rather the son was prodded to ask
And if the son failed to ask he was then taught the mah nishtaneh by
the father! Hence the rambam's precise lashon
So again - who first morphed the Reader/Father's role to the child or
youngest child?
------------------------
Some sources
Artscroll yad avrahan Pesachim 10:3 D"H "aviv m'lamdo" 2nd paragraph
Rambam
Hil. Chametz uMatza Ch. 8:2
See Touger "here is where the son asks"
As per Doniyyel Goldscmidt this is the reading of [all] the rishonim
afaik NOT just the Rambam cited
NB: Hil. Chametz uMatza
Ch. 7:3 might be more ambiguous.
Summary
The p'shat as per rishonim
Son asks some question[s]
And ONLY if he fails does "aviv m"lamdo mah nishtana"
RZS:
> And then? He has no other questions?! He's not expected to have
> noticed the other differences?
NOW YOU GOT IT
The differences listed in the mishnah HAVE NOT YET TAKEN PLACE!
The p'shat is simple
If the child notices
Karpas
Yachatz
Or
Mozgin kos sheini
[Or being given nuts
Or the kittel]
Then schoen gut!
If he lacks that much da'as or curiosity then it is the father/reader
who gives him a heads up of coming attractions that have yet to take place
EG
Matzah
Maror
Hasiba
2 t'villos
Or roasted only
That is why only the leader can say those points and as per Aruch
Hashulchan they are NOT qustions but declarations.
This is how Rishonim saw it and almost definitely how the Talmud
originaly meant it!
The story with Abayyei confirms that he was poteir [pre-empted] the Mah
Nishtaneh with his question!
So my question remains who converted it to the youngest kid saying the
"Mah Nistaneh" about stuff yet to occur?!
In fact the k'dai sheyish'alu is mamash obsoleted by having kids ask in
a rehearsed non-spontaneous way!
RZS
> Sure they have. The first matbilin has already happened, and he's seen
> the charoses so he knows a second dipping is coming. He's seen the biur
> chametz and the matza baking, and by this time knows very well that there
> are no cookies or pretzels or any of his usual sustenance in the house.
> He's seen the maror on the ke'arah (which was brought out after kiddush).
> He's seen heseibah at kiddush. And he's seen the lamb roasting on the
> fire. If he's young he may need to be prompted to ask about these things,
> just as he needs to be prompted to ask about the kos sheni, the nuts, etc.
And so he misses the obvious and darshens from implication!
Can everyone see how conditioning may rob one of the obvious read?
The Occam read here is as the Mishna says that the son asks and if the
lacks da'as then Aviv l'lamdo that these things will happen
And if haroses implies a future tibbul, maybe maror does too! So ask 3?
Let's not kvetch a dochak that the same child - who fails to notice
obvious hints can now read between the lines!
And it seems if zev were correct then probably the father shoud review
with the child how many hints have already been missed!
But since this child "ein lo daas" therefore aviv m'lamdo
This is Mishna
This is Talmud
This is Rambam
This is Rashi
This is Rashbam
Now who first said that the youngest child asks?
The artscroll P'sachim 116a2 adds in English "his father teaches him
TO ASK"
Where the font for "to ask" implies it's NOT in the text
IOW we NOWADAYS learn this as if the Mishnah says "aviv m"amdo lish'ol"
but the word lish'ol is not there and was not seen that way by Rishonim,
or by Aruch HaShulchan who sees these as declarations
Of wonder, not as questions mamash.
So again, who first moved this recital to the youngest child?
RZS:
> For what purpose? Why does he need to know what will happen, if not
> so that he can ask why?
The mishna says ein lo daas! So we know he won't ask having failed 3
opportunities already! He has a hazakkah mamash if eino yodei'a lishol!
So at p'sach lo mah nishtanah. Not to teach asking but to teach that
the night is different! See below
> Huh? Maror is not a dip. He sees one dip coming out, that hasn't
> been used yet, so he knows there's at least one more tevilah coming.
HUH how does he know haroses is a dip and lettuce is not? How perceptive
is he anyway? How can he intuit what WILL happen? Maybe hametz was hidden
as a surprise?!
> Again, *and then what*? What is he teaching him *for*, if not to ask?
Glad you asked
Pashut! He's teaching what a different night it is!
The lashon is
NOT Lamah
NOT keitzad
BUT mah!
What a different night tonight is!
And so goes several peirushim!
But I agree that people are now conditioned to read into it based upon
current practice.
Go back in a time machine and we'd see it otherwise!
No doubt the son or wife or colleague DID ask questions - as per the
tanu rabbana the son IF he was a chacham.
But not otherwise!
Who was the first to change that!
I'm sure Rambam and Rashi would be fascinated as to how this morphed.
Zev is admittedly adept at showing how the acharonim have understood
the Mishnah and the Haggadah.
The point is that we can read between the lines to show that a different
line of thinking used to be prevalent.
[FWIW The same might be said of 2 matzos vs. 3]
Disclaimer:
I'm NOT trying to show that the acharonim have an intrinsically flawed
understanding.
Rather
I'm trying to demonstrate that the Rishonim had a different understanding
at that at a point in time it morphed.
EG The Braisso on 116b states if his son is a chacham he asks!
Clearly this does not imply that the minhag was that everyone's youngest
son asks! Aderraba!
And so the question remains, who first said the youngest child asks?
Please don't bother anymore to show me that the acharonim have indeed
worked this out. I'm not challenging that. I can readily concede that
they have worked it out. I just want the question asked.
Of course by showing that acharonim did work it out produces more torah -
then go for it. ;-) But I'm simply not contesting that point.
Zissen Pesach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 61
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."